Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ehr Separation Welligent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County to separate CDDO and JCDS EHR instances; staff seek up to $250,000 amendment for discovery work
Summary
County staff requested approval of a contract amendment to split the shared Welligent electronic health record into separate instances for JCDS and the CDDO and asked authority for the county to cover up to $250,000 for the project’s discovery and implementation phase.
County staff asked the board to approve a contract amendment to separate the shared Welligent electronic health record (EHR) instance used by Johnson County Developmental Supports into two instances — one for the Community Developmental Disabilities Organization (CDDO) and one for JCDS direct service providers — to address potential conflicts of interest identified in federal guidance and state expectations.
Chris Lanane (presenter) explained that five years ago county departments jointly implemented a Welligent license and that initial implementation used reserves. He said that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) activity on the settings final rule and state guidance prompted a separation to “mitigate or reduce the potential for conflict of interest,” noting that some services overlap between the CDDO and community service providers (CSP). The county applied for and received a $210,000 grant to implement the separation; staff said the Welligent vendor proposed contract amendments that include a discovery phase and that costs might exceed the $210,000 grant, prompting the county to request authority not to exceed $250,000, with any over‑grant amount to be covered by the CSP operational budget if needed.
Lanane said operational licensing costs are expected to remain the same because the change reorganizes licenses rather than increasing license counts. The board was asked to delegate ongoing contract management authority to the JCDS governing board under county purchasing policy, since the contract originally came before the commission when reserves paid initial implementation costs.
Commissioners discussed governance and purchasing policy. County staff described the historical reason the contract returned to the commission (original reserve funding) and said that under current policy appropriate governing boards may administer contracts of this size. Commissioners requested clarity on precedent and implications for other agency boards; staff and the county manager said they would follow up with policy context.
Next steps: staff asked the commission to approve the contract amendment not to exceed $250,000 and to delegate contract administration to the JCDS governing board, with ongoing reporting and compliance per county procurement policies.
